Author: donelsonfiles

A Clear-Eyed Assessment of America’s Post-1979 Policy Toward Iran and the Case for Strategic Strength

By Tom Donelson and George Landrith

Executive Summary:

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged an undeclared war against the United States and its allies, using terrorism, proxy militias, cyber operations, and nuclear brinkmanship. Despite this persistent aggression, successive U.S. administrations—particularly under Barack Obama and Joe Biden—have sought accommodation rather than confrontation, providing Iran with financial windfalls and diplomatic cover that have fueled its regional campaigns of violence.

By contrast, President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy—grounded in economic sanctions, targeted military action, and the forging of regional alliances—reversed Iran’s momentum. The killing of Qassem Soleimani, the withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the Abraham Accords restored American deterrence and reshaped the Middle East’s balance of power without dragging the U.S. into new wars.

In 2025, with Iran racing toward nuclear breakout, Trump authorized targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. These actions, far from reckless, were constitutionally justified, strategically necessary, and ultimately stabilizing. They bought time, degraded Iran’s capabilities, and helped create the conditions for regional de-escalation.

This paper argues that peace is not achieved through appeasement, but through resolve. Trump’s foreign policy—realist, principled, and forceful—offers the only credible model for containing Iran and protecting U.S. interests in a dangerous world.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: A War We Didn’t Recognize
2. Iran’s Four-Decade War on America and Its Allies
3. The Obama-Biden Years: Appeasement and Enablement
4. The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength
5. Biden’s Reversal: Reinvigorating a Terror State
6. Recent Developments: Strikes and Ceasefire Prospects
7. On the Constitutional Authority of the President to Use Force
8. Strategic Lessons and the Way Forward
9. Conclusion: The Choice Between War and Peace Is a Choice Between Weakness and Resolve

I.  Introduction: A War We Didn’t Recognize

We have been at war with Iran since 1979, although most Americans have not realized it. From the moment Iranian revolutionaries seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, the Islamic Republic declared its enmity toward the United States and its allies. What followed was not a traditional war with armies on defined battlefields, but a sustained campaign of proxy violence, terror attacks, cyber warfare, and global destabilization orchestrated from Tehran.

Over four decades, Iran has armed, trained, and funded terrorist groups across the Middle East—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. These proxies have killed American soldiers, diplomats, civilians, and our allies. Iran has also violently suppressed its own people, imprisoned dissidents, executed political opponents, and pursued nuclear weapons while chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Despite this unrelenting aggression, many U.S. leaders, particularly in Democratic administrations, have treated Iran as a misunderstood adversary rather than what it plainly is: a rogue regime with global ambitions rooted in religious extremism and anti-Western ideology.

This white paper is a sober assessment of Iran’s four-decade war on America, the failures of appeasement under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the success of Donald Trump’s maximum pressure strategy, and the path forward based on realism, deterrence, and national interest.

II.  Iran’s Four-Decade War on America and Its Allies

Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used terrorism, proxy militias, and asymmetric warfare as core instruments of state policy. The regime’s goal has never been merely survival—it has sought regional hegemony and the destruction of Israel and the United States. What follows is a non-exhaustive but representative timeline of Iranian aggression.

1979–1981: The Hostage Crisis

The war began with the Iranian seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days in a direct violation of international law. This brazen act set the tone for Tehran’s foreign policy—ideologically driven, contemptuous of the West, and unapologetically lawless.

1980s: Terrorism in Lebanon and Beyond

In the early 1980s, Iran helped form and fund Hezbollah in Lebanon. The group quickly became a key proxy and was responsible for devastating attacks against Americans:

• April 1983: Hezbollah bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans.
• October 1983: A suicide truck bomb destroyed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen—at that time, the worst single-day loss of U.S. Marines since World War II.
• 1984: Another bombing struck the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24.
• 1985: Hezbollah hijacked TWA Flight 847, murdered U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, and held passengers hostage for 17 days.

1990s: Escalation Abroad

• 1996: The IRGC-supported group Hezbollah al-Hejaz conducted the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel and injuring nearly 500 others. A U.S. federal court later held Iran responsible for the attack.

2000s: Ties to al-Qaeda and Global Terrorism

Although Iran is a Shiite regime, it has supported Sunni terrorist organizations when strategically useful. U.S. courts have found that:

• Iran materially supported al-Qaeda in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people.
• Iran aided operatives involved in the 2000 USS Cole bombing (17 U.S. sailors killed).
• Iran helped facilitate travel for al-Qaeda terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks, allowing them to cross its borders without passports.

2003–2011: U.S. Troops Targeted in Iraq

During the Iraq War, Iran-backed militias—including Kata’ib Hezbollah and the Badr Corps—waged war on U.S. and coalition forces. These militias used EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and IEDs supplied by Iran. Hundreds of American troops were killed or maimed by Iranian-designed weapons.

2019–2020: Soleimani, Embassy Attacks, and Missile Retaliation

• December 2019: Kata’ib Hezbollah fired rockets at the K-1 base in Kirkuk, killing a U.S. contractor and injuring American personnel.
• December 31, 2019: Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
• January 3, 2020: In response, the Trump administration authorized the killing of Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force, in a drone strike in Baghdad.
• January 8, 2020: Iran retaliated by firing ballistic missiles at Ain al-Asad and Erbil airbases, injuring at least 110 U.S. troops.

2023–2024: Proxy Escalation Across the Region

From late 2023 through 2024, Iran’s proxies launched over 170 drone, missile, and rocket attacks on U.S. positions in Iraq and Syria:

• October 2023: Drone strike on al-Tanf base, injuring 20 U.S. and allied personnel.
• November 2023: Missile strike on al-Asad airbase injured 8 coalition troops.
• January 2024: Rocket barrage caused multiple injuries and increased defensive deployments.

Houthis and Maritime Attacks

Iran’s proxy in Yemen, the Houthis, launched more than 170 attacks on shipping and naval assets in the Red Sea between late 2023 and early 2025:

• January 15, 2024: A Houthi missile struck the U.S.-owned M/V Gibraltar Eagle, injuring crew.
• Multiple U.S. Navy ships—USS Carney, USS Laboon, among others—intercepted Houthi missiles or drones in active combat zones.

Assassination and Kidnapping Plots

Iran has also targeted individuals on U.S. soil:

• 2021: U.S. authorities foiled a plot to kidnap Masih Alinejad, an Iranian-American journalist.
• 2022: DOJ charged an IRGC agent with plotting to assassinate John Bolton; similar threats were made against Mike Pompeo and other Trump-era officials.

2025: Renewed Attacks After Nuclear Facility Strikes

Following U.S. and Israeli operations against Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, Iran’s militias resumed attacks on U.S. assets, particularly in Iraq and Syria. The Houthis further escalated maritime attacks. These responses confirmed Iran’s continued commitment to proxy warfare and regional destabilization.

III.  The Obama-Biden Years: Appeasement and Enablement

While Iran’s aggression remained constant, the U.S. posture toward Tehran shifted dramatically during the Obama administration. Rather than holding Iran accountable, the Obama-Biden foreign policy establishment sought to integrate the regime into the international community through engagement and economic incentives—an approach that proved naive, counterproductive, and dangerous.

The JCPOA: A Deal That Empowered the Enemy

In 2015, President Obama finalized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, along with Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. Heralded by supporters as a historic achievement to prevent Iranian nuclear proliferation, the agreement was riddled with weaknesses:

• Sunset clauses guaranteed that key nuclear restrictions would expire within 10–15 years.
• The deal excluded Iran’s ballistic missile program, a critical delivery system for nuclear weapons.
• Iran was allowed to self-inspect suspected military sites under certain conditions.
• Iran received a $150 billion windfall in unfrozen assets and relief from crippling sanctions.
• The U.S. sent Iran pallets of cash in foreign currency totaling $1.7 billion, allegedly to settle a pre-revolution arms deal.

Instead of moderating Iran’s behavior, the JCPOA funded its terror machine. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Assad’s regime in Syria all benefited. Iran’s regional influence surged, and its anti-American, anti-Israel activities increased—not decreased.

As even critics within the Obama administration later acknowledged, Iran’s leaders never intended to become a “normal” state. They simply took the cash and bought more missiles, proxies, and centrifuges.

Biden’s Continuation of a Failed Policy

As vice president, Joe Biden had supported the JCPOA. As president, he tried to revive it—even after Iran repeatedly violated the agreement, enriched uranium beyond allowed thresholds, and obstructed international inspectors.

In practice, Biden’s policies resembled Obama’s, but with fewer results:

• He eased enforcement of oil sanctions, allowing Iran to profit from black-market sales.
• His administration released or unfroze billions in Iranian assets, including a $6 billion transfer in 2023 for a hostage swap.
• Despite Iranian attacks on U.S. troops and allies, Biden refused to hold Tehran accountable militarily.

The consequences were immediate and predictable:

• Iranian proxies grew bolder in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Yemen.
• Hamas launched mass rocket attacks against Israel.
• Hezbollah threatened war from Lebanon.
• The Houthis disrupted global trade routes in the Red Sea.
• Iran raced toward weapons-grade uranium enrichment, shrinking its “breakout time” to mere weeks.

Biden’s policy—grounded in the illusion that engagement could change the nature of the regime—reinvigorated Iran’s terror state. The U.S. signaled weakness, and Iran responded with escalation.

IV.  The Trump Doctrine:  Peace Through Strength

In sharp contrast to the appeasement and strategic wishful thinking of the Obama-Biden years, President Donald J. Trump adopted a realist, America First foreign policy that confronted Iran with clarity, courage, and consequences. Trump understood that the Iranian regime respects only power—and that attempts to negotiate from a position of weakness only embolden tyrants.

Withdrawal from the JCPOA

In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. He rightly called it a “horrible, one-sided deal that should never, ever have been made.” This decision reasserted U.S. sovereignty and credibility, and it ended the charade that Tehran was a good-faith negotiating partner.

Trump immediately reimposed all prior sanctions and initiated what became known as the maximum pressure campaign, aimed at crushing the regime’s ability to fund terror and develop nuclear weapons.

The Maximum Pressure Strategy

Trump’s sanctions targeted:

• Iran’s Central Bank
• Petrochemical and energy sectors
• Shipping, aviation, and metals
• Key individuals in the IRGC and Quds Force

The result: Iran’s economy contracted by nearly 10%, oil exports plummeted by over 75%, and the regime lost tens of billions in annual revenues. These funds had previously been used to fund Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other militias.

As Victor Davis Hanson noted, Trump’s approach wasn’t isolationist or reckless—it was populist and nationalist, rooted in a cost-benefit analysis of U.S. interests. He wasn’t interested in remaking the Middle East but in protecting Americans and forcing adversaries to respect U.S. power.

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani

On January 3, 2020, President Trump authorized the targeted strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC-Quds Force. Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and had orchestrated attacks across the region for decades.

His death:

• Disrupted Iran’s command structure abroad.
• Sent a clear deterrent signal to Iran and other adversaries.
• Was carried out with precision, without drawing the U.S. into a new war.

Contrary to media hysteria, the strike prevented future attacks rather than provoking new ones. Iran’s immediate response—a missile strike on U.S. bases that caused injuries but no deaths—was largely performative and carefully calibrated to avoid U.S. retaliation.

The Abraham Accords

While applying pressure to Iran, Trump also pursued peace elsewhere. The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. This historic achievement:

• United moderate Sunni states and Israel in a regional alliance against Iran.
• Demonstrated that peace did not require surrender to Tehran or endless conflict with Israel.
• Achieved what decades of State Department orthodoxy and appeasement had failed to do.

It was a triumph of realism over ideology—and it occurred without a single U.S. troop being deployed or a shot being fired.

A Doctrinal Return to Strategic Clarity

Trump’s approach mirrored the Weinberger Doctrine, formulated after the Vietnam War:

1. Use force only when vital national interests are at stake.
2. Use overwhelming force and clear objectives.
3. Commit fully or not at all.
4. Pursue diplomatic solutions first.
5. Reassess and adapt.
6. Ensure public support.

Trump’s Iran policy met these standards. He avoided endless wars, kept American troops safe, supported allies, and used diplomacy backed by strength. In short, he restored deterrence.

V.  Biden’s Reversal: Reinvigorating a Terror State

In one of the most dangerous foreign policy reversals in modern American history, President Joe Biden dismantled the Trump-era maximum pressure campaign against Iran. Instead of building on a position of strength, the Biden administration reverted to the failed policies of appeasement, naively attempting to resuscitate the JCPOA and normalize relations with Tehran.

The results were swift and dire: Iran resumed its regional aggression, escalated attacks through proxies, and advanced its nuclear program to dangerous levels.

Easing of Sanctions and Economic Windfalls

Upon taking office, Biden signaled an eagerness to return to the JCPOA—even as Iran openly violated the deal’s provisions. Though formal re-entry was never achieved, Biden’s administration deliberately relaxed sanctions enforcement, allowing Iran to significantly increase oil sales, particularly to China.

This flood of revenue—estimated in the tens of billions of dollars—revitalized Iran’s military, subsidized its terrorist proxies, and undercut U.S. leverage. At a time when Iran should have been weakened, Biden strengthened it.

In 2023, the administration agreed to release $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for the return of five American hostages. While the deal was portrayed as a humanitarian gesture, it set a dangerous precedent: rewarding hostage-taking with billions in ransom.

Strategic Passivity Amid Escalation

Even as Iranian-backed militias launched over 170 attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria between 2023 and 2024, Biden’s military response was restrained and delayed. American deterrence began to crumble.

At the same time, the Houthis escalated their maritime campaign in the Red Sea, targeting international shipping and directly threatening U.S. naval vessels. The administration’s response was largely reactive, consisting of limited defensive strikes rather than a cohesive strategy to eliminate the threat.

The failure to respond forcefully emboldened Iran’s proxies and endangered American and allied lives.

Nuclear Breakout and IAEA Violations

Perhaps most troublingly, Iran raced toward nuclear weapons capability under Biden’s watch. By 2024, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had enriched uranium to near weapons-grade purity—far beyond the JCPOA’s limits.

Biden’s response? Renewed calls for negotiations.

Even as the regime refused to cooperate with inspectors, barred access to sites, and enriched uranium beyond 60%, the administration clung to the illusion that diplomacy alone could resolve the crisis. In doing so, it allowed Iran to shrink its nuclear breakout time to weeks—placing the region and the world at risk.

Undermining U.S. Credibility

While Iran rearmed and threatened regional war, the Biden administration signaled weakness:

• It slow-walked military responses.
• It engaged in public criticism of Israel while placating Iran.
• It allowed Iran to believe it could act with impunity.

This erosion of American deterrence undermined not only security in the Middle East, but also U.S. credibility worldwide—from Eastern Europe to the Indo-Pacific.

VI. Recent Developments: Strikes and Ceasefire Prospects

By early 2025, it had become clear that Iran was approaching the nuclear threshold. Intelligence reports indicated that Iran had stockpiled enriched uranium at levels perilously close to weapons-grade purity and had begun testing advanced centrifuge designs. The regime’s escalation—combined with its persistent attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests through proxies—reached a tipping point.

In response, both the United States and Israel launched a series of coordinated strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Though not publicly acknowledged in full detail, the attacks involved a combination of cyber warfare, sabotage, air strikes, and covert operations targeting Iran’s most sensitive nuclear sites, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Objectives and Outcomes

The primary goals of these strikes were to:

1. Destroy key centrifuge facilities and uranium enrichment capabilities.
2. Delay Iran’s ability to achieve nuclear breakout.
3. Deter further Iranian escalation or proxy aggression.
4. Reassert red lines after years of diplomatic ambiguity.

Initial assessments indicate that the strikes succeeded in crippling Iran’s nuclear timeline and forced Tehran to recalibrate. The damage to physical infrastructure, combined with internal unrest and mounting economic pressures, limited Iran’s options for escalation.

Proxy Reaction and Containment

In the aftermath of the strikes, Iranian proxies—particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen—increased attacks on U.S. and allied positions, attempting to retaliate without triggering a full-scale war. These attacks included:

• Rocket and drone strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq.
• Maritime drone assaults in the Red Sea by Houthi forces.
• Renewed threats from Hezbollah along Israel’s northern border.

However, the U.S. response was swift and calibrated, focusing on counterforce operations rather than full-scale invasions. The emphasis remained on destroying capabilities, not occupying territory—a key feature of the Trump-era military philosophy.

Signs of Ceasefire and De-Escalation

Ironically, the bold strikes—while escalating tensions in the short term—helped create the conditions for de-escalation. Iran found itself:

• Militarily degraded.
• Economically strained.
• Facing widespread domestic dissent.
• Increasingly isolated diplomatically.

By mid-2025, quiet diplomatic channels began to open between regional powers seeking to stabilize Yemen, reduce Houthi activity, and prevent a broader war. Early signs of progress included:

• Provisional ceasefire talks in Yemen.
• Reduced Houthi attacks on shipping.
• Increased international inspections in Iranian nuclear sites—under pressure, not invitation.

These developments confirmed a central truth of international relations: peace is not achieved through appeasement, but through the assertive use of force when justified and the strategic application of leverage.

VII. On the Constitutional Authority of the President to Use Force

In the wake of President Trump’s 2025 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, some political opponents claimed that the action was unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. These criticisms were not only disingenuous—they were historically and legally absurd.

The Commander-in-Chief Clause

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution designates the President as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. This role grants the President the authority to direct military operations, respond to imminent threats, and take action to defend U.S. interests—without first obtaining congressional approval for every tactical decision.

While the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to “declare war,” this has never been interpreted as requiring prior approval for every military engagement or strike. Historically, U.S. Presidents have used military force hundreds of times without formal declarations of war—from Jefferson’s action against the Barbary Pirates to modern-day precision strikes against terrorist threats.

Precedent: Obama, Biden, and Presidential Force

President Barack Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone, according to Pentagon data. These operations included airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan—without formal declarations of war and often without prior congressional authorization. Yet no serious legal scholar or Democratic leader proposed impeaching Obama for these actions.

Similarly, President Joe Biden has ordered airstrikes in Syria and Iraq during his term, targeting Iranian-backed militias following attacks on U.S. forces. Again, no impeachment was discussed, because Biden, like all modern presidents, exercised his lawful authority as commander in chief.

Trump’s Actions: Lawful, Targeted, and Justified

President Trump’s 2025 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities followed the same legal and constitutional framework:

• The action was targeted and limited, designed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
• It was conducted in defense of U.S. interests and international security.
• The President informed Congress afterward, in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

To suggest that such action constitutes an impeachable offense is not just partisan—it reflects a basic misunderstanding of constitutional governance. As one commentator observed, “This argument is so weak that even a civics student would know better.”

Selective Outrage and Political Hypocrisy

That some Democrats condemned Trump’s strikes as impeachable, while defending or ignoring similar (and often broader) use of force by Obama and Biden, reveals a dangerous double standard. It suggests that, for many, principle matters less than politics.

Fortunately, not all Democrats joined the chorus of hysteria. A handful praised Trump’s action as “strong” or “decisive,” recognizing that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran serves not just Republicans or conservatives—but the entire free world.

VIII. Strategic Lessons and the Way Forward

Four decades of American engagement with Iran have revealed a hard but essential truth: the Islamic Republic does not want coexistence—it wants dominance. Its regime views diplomacy not as a path to peace, but as a tactic to buy time, extract concessions, and continue its revolution.

American policy must therefore be grounded not in wishful thinking, but in strategic clarity and moral realism. The experience of the Obama-Biden and Trump administrations provides a stark contrast and a valuable roadmap.

Lesson 1: Appeasement Fails

Attempts to “moderate” Iran through economic incentives, diplomatic engagement, or non-binding agreements have repeatedly failed. The JCPOA and similar initiatives empowered Iran without changing its behavior. The regime simply used Western funds to advance its goals: supporting terrorism, repressing its own people, and developing nuclear weapons.

Any future policy must reject the illusion that Iran will reform itself if simply shown goodwill. Appeasement emboldens tyrants.

Lesson 2: Pressure Works

President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign—rooted in sanctions, isolation, and targeted force—weakened Iran more effectively than any policy since the revolution. It disrupted their funding networks, limited their ability to wage proxy wars, and restored deterrence.

The killing of Qassem Soleimani demonstrated that red lines would be enforced. The Abraham Accords built a regional alliance without conceding to Iran. Strength, not surrender, opened doors to peace.

Lesson 3: Regime Change Must Come from Within

While some argue that the U.S. should seek to overthrow the Iranian regime, President Trump recognized that regime change cannot be imposed by foreign armies. The best path forward lies in:

• Supporting dissident voices inside Iran.
• Amplifying the regime’s human rights abuses on the world stage.
• Maintaining economic and diplomatic pressure to expose the regime’s failure.
• Strengthening regional allies to contain Iran’s influence.

The Iranian people—not the U.S. military—must be the agents of their own liberation. Our job is to create the conditions in which that transformation can take place.

Lesson 4: The Role of Strategic Doctrine

As President Trump’s policies demonstrated, the Weinberger Doctrine remains a valuable framework for modern American engagement:

1. Act only when vital national interests are at stake.
2. Use overwhelming force with clear objectives.
3. Avoid half-measures and mission creep.
4. Exhaust diplomacy—but don’t rely on it blindly.
5. Continually reassess and adapt.
6. Seek public support for any sustained operation.

This doctrine offers America First foreign policy advocates a path to avoid both reckless entanglements and dangerous passivity.

IX.  Conclusion: The Choice Between War and Peace Is a Choice Between Weakness and Resolve

Critics of President Trump frequently warned that his strong stance on Iran would lead to World War III. They accused him of recklessness, of warmongering, of triggering global instability. Yet the facts speak for themselves: during his presidency, there were no new wars. Iran was weakened, not emboldened. U.S. troops were safer, not more endangered. Peace, not war, was the fruit of strategic strength.

Contrast this with the Obama-Biden years, when appeasement emboldened terrorists, Iran advanced its nuclear program, and American deterrence collapsed. From the JCPOA to the unreciprocated diplomacy of Biden’s first term, the lesson was repeated: diplomacy without leverage invites disaster.

The Trump Doctrine worked not because it was ideological, but because it was grounded in realism, history, and common sense. It recognized that Iran’s regime cannot be reformed with cash, cannot be trusted with nuclear capabilities, and cannot be reasoned into abandoning its core mission of exporting radicalism and terror.

The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025—a lawful, justified, and necessary action—was not an act of war. It was an act of prevention. It delayed nuclear breakout. It reestablished red lines. And, importantly, it helped set the conditions for regional de-escalation and possible ceasefires. As in previous chapters of American history, strength brought stability.

For all the criticism, President Trump’s Iran policy offers a case study in successful statecraft:

• Clear objectives
• Measured use of force
• Economic pressure over military occupation
• Respect for American lives and interests first

Peace does not come from hoping the enemy will change. It comes from ensuring they have no choice.

If America is to protect its people, its allies, and its future, it must return to this clarity of purpose. A nuclear Iran is not inevitable. Terrorism is not unstoppable. Appeasement is not diplomacy. And weakness is not peace.

America must once again lead—not with apologies or concessions, but with strength, resolve, and moral clarity.

By George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute

In an age of rising authoritarianism and economic interdependence, the question of how the United States should conduct its trade policy is not merely one of dollars and cents — it is a matter of national security, moral clarity, and global leadership. The current global system requires a differentiated approach: one that rewards cooperation and punishes coercion. While the U.S. should pursue zero or near-zero tariffs with allies and like-minded democracies, it must maintain — and in many cases increase — trade barriers with regimes that weaponize trade to undermine sovereignty, expand authoritarian influence, or use their profits from international trade to fund unjustified wars and aggression against their neighbors, or fund terrorism around the globe. 

The United States has long championed the virtues of free trade, and rightly so. When conducted among democratic allies who share a commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, free trade is an engine of prosperity and peace. Lowering or eliminating tariffs among such nations not only boosts economic growth but strengthens the fabric of a free and open international order.

However, the same tools that build mutual prosperity among friends can be weaponized by authoritarian regimes bent on domination and exporting terrorism. Nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have demonstrated a willingness to use trade, shipping, and economic leverage as instruments of coercion and control. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for example, is not merely a trade plan — it is a strategy for global dominance that exploits economic dependence to bend nations to its will. In such cases, the United States must respond with strength and strategy. This means imposing tariffs and other trade barriers that blunt the power of economic warfare, incentivize American companies to re-shore or diversify their supply chains, and prevent our allies from falling prey to authoritarian chokeholds.

The complexity of the various goals with regard to trade policy — to promote economic growth and economic benefits among free nations, while at the same time making it more difficult for totalitarian regimes to fund wars against their neighbors, or fund and export terrorism, or to engage in economic warfare around the globe — a two-tiered approach to global trade policy is needed:  one that promotes zero tariffs among trusted allies to foster mutual prosperity and another that uses strategic tariffs against hostile regimes to counteract their imperial ambitions. By aligning trade policy with national values and strategic interests, America can build a stronger economy at home, a more resilient alliance abroad, and a freer world for generations to come.

The bottom line is that drawing from history, economics, and real-world case studies, it becomes clear that free trade among friends promotes peace and prosperity, while free trade with adversaries must be constrained to prevent exploitation, coercion, and imperialism. 

The Value of Free Trade Among Friends

The economic arguments for free trade are well-established. Free trade allows nations to specialize in areas of comparative advantage, leading to increased efficiency, lower costs, and greater prosperity. Historically, the lowering of trade barriers among Western nations has fueled growth and innovation. The post-World War II liberal economic order — anchored by institutions like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO) — helped the free world rebuild and flourish.

But free trade is more than an economic concept — it is both a practical and a political principle. When democratic nations trade freely, they are not only exchanging goods and services; they are reinforcing bonds of mutual trust and shared values. Trade among allies supports the development of robust middle classes, strengthens civil institutions, and reduces the incentives for conflict. In short, it helps build a peaceful international order.

Trade liberalization among democracies has produced decades of growth. Even a mediocre trade agreement like NAFTA, let to trade among the NAFTA parties growing from $290 billion in 1993 to over $1.2 trillion by 2021.¹ The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), in effect since 2012, increased American exports to South Korea by nearly 50% over its first five years.²

These economic gains are not confined to GDP. They reflect strategic alignment: shared standards, transparent institutions, respect for rule of law, and protection of intellectual property. By lowering barriers among friendly nations, the United States can encourage innovation, strengthen allies’ economies, and reduce global dependence on authoritarian states.

For these reasons, the United States should pursue near-zero tariffs with its closest allies: Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO nations, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, Israel, and emerging partners like India, the Philippines, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Such agreements would not only benefit American workers and consumers, but also create an economic bloc strong enough to withstand coercion from authoritarian regimes.

Tariffs as Strategic Tools Against Hostile Regimes

While free trade works well among friends, it can be disastrous when extended to adversaries who reject the rules of fair competition and wield economic tools to advance totalitarian aims. Authoritarian regimes view trade not as a partnership, but as a pressure point. For them, commerce is a tool of control, not cooperation. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have repeatedly used trade relationships to coerce neighbors, undermine global norms, fund unjustified threats and wars against their neighbors, export terrorism, and gain asymmetric advantages.

China, in particular, presents a sobering case study in how a nation can use trade and investment to undermine the global order. Under the guise of development, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has ensnared dozens of countries in debt traps, forced infrastructure dependencies, and undermined local governance. Through control of ports, railroads, and shipping lanes, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is constructing a new kind of empire — one based not on traditional military conquest, but on strategic economic entanglement. In Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and even parts of Europe, China now exerts influence not because of shared values or fair competition, but because of raw economic leverage.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative, China has funded roads, ports, and railways in over 100 countries. But these are not gifts — they are loans with strings. In Sri Lanka, the inability to service Chinese debt forced the government to hand over Hambantota Port in a 99-year lease.³ In Africa, Chinese-financed projects have brought accusations of neo-colonialism and environmental abuse.

Moreover, China routinely uses trade as leverage. After Australia called for an independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, China retaliated with tariffs and import bans on Australian wine, beef, and barley.⁴ Lithuania faced similar punishment after opening a Taiwanese representative office in Vilnius.⁵ These acts make it clear: Beijing views trade as a weapon.

For years, Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas muted its response to Moscow’s aggression. Germany, the EU’s largest economy, built energy policy on the faulty premise that economic engagement with Russia would lead to liberalization. Instead, the Nord Stream pipelines gave Vladimir Putin both revenue and leverage. Only after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine did Europe begin to unwind this dangerous dependency.⁶

Iran uses its oil revenues to fund regional terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Despite crippling sanctions, it continues to trade with sympathetic regimes — often through illicit channels — undermining regional stability. North Korea, though more isolated, uses its limited trade and cybercrime to finance its weapons programs which it uses to threaten many nations across the globe. Neither regime participates in global trade in good faith.

To ignore this would be dangerously naïve. The United States must treat trade with such regimes not as an economic opportunity, but as a strategic threat. Tariffs are one of the few tools that democratic nations can use to push back against this aggression without direct military conflict. By raising the cost of doing business with China, we can create disincentives for American companies to invest in a nation that seeks to control and ultimately undermine us.

The Dual Role of Tariffs: Economic Protection and Strategic Defense

Critics of tariffs often portray them as purely protectionist, economically harmful, or counterproductive. While blanket, arbitrary tariffs can indeed have negative effects, when used strategically — as levers of negotiation or tools of deterrence — they can be profoundly effective. 

Simply stated, traditional free market economic theory often opposes tariffs, arguing they distort markets and harm consumers. In a vacuum, that may be true. But in the real world, where states pursue geopolitical advantage through trade, tariffs are sometimes necessary tools of statecraft.

President Donald Trump demonstrated this with his bold trade policies, particularly his approach to China. President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs — particularly against China—demonstrated their value as leverage. By imposing Section 301 tariffs, the Trump administration targeted sectors implicated in intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and subsidies to state-owned enterprises.⁷ These measures prompted a reevaluation of China’s role in global supply chains.

With respect to China, Trump’s tariffs served a broader geopolitical purpose. By making it more costly to manufacture and import Chinese goods, these policies encouraged U.S. firms to move production either back to the United States or to more reliable trading partners such as Vietnam, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. This realignment is crucial. Not only does it reduce dependence on a hostile power, but it strengthens the economies of democratic allies and diversifies the global supply chain.

Tariffs also set the stage for renegotiated and improved trade deals.  For example, the tariffs Trump implemented and threatened allowed the U.S. to renegotiate NAFTA into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a deal that ensured stronger protections for American labor, tighter enforcement of trade rules, and greater access to markets.⁸ Though controversial at the time, the use of tariffs produced tangible gains and began reorienting American trade policy toward strategic objectives.

Nonetheless, unilateral action can only go so far. There is a risk that, in response to U.S. tariffs, China may dump its excess products — steel, solar panels, batteries, clothing, and more — into allied markets at below-market prices, eroding industries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. To prevent this, the United States must coordinate its tariff strategy with its partners. Just as NATO provides collective defense against military aggression, a multilateral trade strategy can defend against China’s economic coercion.

Strengthening the Economic Front of the Free World

Economic strength is a prerequisite for national security. A country that relies on hostile regimes for essential goods — such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, energy, or rare earth minerals — is not truly sovereign. America’s trade policy should reflect this reality.

But security does not require isolation. On the contrary, we should be deepening economic ties with nations that share our values and geopolitical interests. By reducing tariffs, increasing investment, and promoting innovation within this trusted circle, the United States can lead the creation of a new economic alliance — one based not on coercion, but on cooperation.

One benefit of strategic tariffs is the acceleration of reshoring and “friendshoring” — moving production out of adversarial countries and into domestic or allied economies. American firms, in response to tariffs and rising Chinese labor costs, have shifted operations to Vietnam, India, and Mexico.⁹ These shifts enhance supply chain resilience and reduce vulnerability to economic blackmail.

The U.S. should also invest in capacity-building programs to help allies develop their own industries and infrastructure. For example, redirecting supply chains away from China will only succeed if nations like India and Vietnam can scale production and logistics. A targeted, values-based foreign aid program focused on industrial development could go a long way in achieving this. In the long term, a world in which the United States and its allies supply each other, rather than being dependent on authoritarian powers, is not only more prosperous, but far more stable and secure.

Historical Lessons: The Cold War and Economic Containment

During the Cold War, the U.S. recognized the danger of economically empowering adversaries. The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) restricted Western technology transfers to the Soviet bloc. The Marshall Plan, by contrast, aimed to revive Western Europe economically, creating a bulwark against communism. The logic was simple: economic strength undergirds political freedom.

Today’s authoritarian regimes should be met with the same moral clarity. Totalitarian powers should not be allowed to exploit free markets while suppressing their own people and threatening their neighbors.

Coordinating With Allies to Maximize Impact

Strategic tariffs are most likely effective if coordinated and implemented multilaterally. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on China, but Europe and Southeast Asia increase trade with Beijing, the effect is diluted or reversed. Worse, Chinese goods diverted from American markets may flood allied economies, undercutting their industries. Coordinated tariff and investment policies among allies would ensure that China cannot shift its exports to friendlier markets and undercut their domestic industries.

The U.S. must lead a global coalition of democracies with a unified trade strategy. This could include:

• A Democratic Trade Alliance that lowers tariffs among member states.
• A Digital Trade Charter to combat cyber-espionage and protect Intellectual Property as China is the leading thief of intellectual property.
• Joint investment funds for critical infrastructure in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to counter the influence of the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative designed to create international choke points for China’s advantage. 
• Multilateral enforcement of labor and environmental standards, barring products made with forced labor or ecological abuse.

The United States should actively promote tariff-free or low-tariff trade among members of the free world. This would not only reward good behavior but also encourage more countries — especially emerging economies — to adopt liberal democratic principles as a path to economic prosperity. This framework would reward democratic governance and economic transparency, while isolating bad actors and evil doers. 

Addressing Critiques of Strategic Tariffs

Critics of tariffs sometimes raise valid concerns: higher prices for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and risks of retaliation. But these costs must be weighed against the strategic imperative of resisting authoritarian influence.

Moreover, some of these concerns are exaggerated. The initial inflationary effects of tariffs often level out as supply chains adjust. More importantly, the cost of dependence on authoritarian regimes — economic coercion, strategic vulnerability, and moral compromise — is far greater. For example, during World War II, I doubt anyone who valued freedom was arguing that the world should be engaging in free trade with Hitler’s Nazi regime. It makes no sense to empower those who once they obtain power will use it to enslave you and dominate you. 

Another critique is that tariffs hurt developing nations. But this is precisely why a coalition of democracies should step in to offer developing countries fairer alternatives — through investment, trade access, and technology transfer — without the strings of authoritarian loans like China does. We can build economic situations that provide profits for both sides of investment. But we can’t follow China’s model which is investment to grow only our ability to choke off other nations. 

President Trump’s trade and tariffs approach may not be absolutely perfect, but it is focused on not only helping America to be more prosperous and secure, but to work with our friends and allies to help them be more prosperous and secure, and at the same time making evil totalitarian regimes have a more difficult time funding their threats and violence against their own people and the rest of the world. This is a wise approach and hopefully he will be effective in putting these goals in practice.

The United States should always be promoting a values-based trade doctrine — one that recognizes the moral distinctions between democracies and dictatorships. Trade with friends should be open, robust, and tariff-free. Trade with adversaries must be conditional, limited, and cautious. 

Policymakers must also remain vigilant to prevent tariffs from being captured by domestic special interests or devolving into protectionism. Tariff policies should be flexible, data-driven, and tied to clear strategic goals.

This doctrine aligns with core American principles: liberty, fairness, and the rule of law. It also reflects strategic wisdom. No nation will benefit if a totalitarian power like China dominates global shipping lanes, 5G infrastructure, rare earth minerals, and AI platforms.

Economic policy is not neutral. It either reinforces democratic order or subsidizes authoritarian advance. The time for moral ambiguity is over.

Navigating the Risks and Trade-Offs

No policy is without costs. Strategic tariffs may lead to higher consumer prices in the short term. Shifting supply chains can be complex, and retaliatory tariffs from adversarial nations are always a possibility. These risks are real — but they are manageable, especially when weighed against the costs of inaction.

China’s long-term strategy is to make the world dependent on its exports, control key global infrastructure, and leverage these dependencies for political and military gain. To pretend otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking. Tariffs — when based on clear strategic principles — can act as both punishment and prevention. They can send a message: the United States will not fund its enemies, nor will it allow its allies to be economically strangled.

The ultimate goal of American trade policy should be to serve the interests of the American people while also defending the principles of freedom, democracy, and sovereignty abroad. A healthy domestic manufacturing base, strong alliances, and a diversified global supply chain are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually reinforcing.

High tariffs on China and other hostile regimes can accelerate a realignment of global trade away from authoritarian power centers. At the same time, zero or near-zero tariffs among allies will unleash innovation, lower costs, and build a foundation for collective security and prosperity.  In short, we must not treat all nations equally in trade policy—because not all nations share our values or our goals.

To ensure fairness and transparency, America’s tariff policy must be guided by a coherent framework — one that prioritizes national security, promotes democratic values, and seeks multilateral support. Tariffs should not be used impulsively, but rather as part of a long-term strategy of economic alignment with friends and economic decoupling from foes.

Conclusion

America’s trade policy must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Free trade remains a cornerstone of prosperity and international cooperation — when practiced among friends. But when weaponized by authoritarian regimes, trade becomes a tool of domination and dependence. The United States must therefore adopt a differentiated tariff strategy: one that promotes near-zero tariffs among democratic allies, and one that uses strategic trade barriers to contain and counteract totalitarian economic warfare.

This is not only an economic necessity but a moral imperative. The global future must not be shaped by the coercive power of tyrants, but by the shared prosperity of free peoples. In leading this effort, America can ensure that its trade policy not only protects its workers and industries but also safeguards the freedom and dignity of nations around the globe. We must act not just as a marketplace, but as a moral leader — building a world where liberty and prosperity go hand in hand.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Endnotes:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 ¹ Office of the United States Trade Representative. “USMCA: United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.” https://ustr.gov/usmca.

²  U.S. Department of Commerce. “U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Outcomes.” 2020.

³ Abi-Habib, Maria. “How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port.” The New York Times, June 25, 2018.

⁴  Dziedzic, Stephen. “Australia hits back at China’s economic coercion.” ABC News (Australia), Dec. 2020. 

⁵  Karnitschnig, Matthew. “China punishes Lithuania for Taiwan ties.” Politico, December 2021. 

⁶  European Commission. “EU Imports of Energy Products – Recent Developments.” https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics.

⁷  Bown, Chad P., and Douglas A. Irwin. “The Trump Trade War: Motivations, Manifestation, and the Future.” Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2019. 

⁸  White House. “Fact Sheet: USMCA Agreement.” July 2020. 

⁹  Sharma, Ruchir. “The Manufacturing Shift Away from China.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2023. 

The Israel attack on Iran and the subsequent Iranian counterattack, can be traced to Barack Obama policies toward Iran. A policy based on the idea that Iran could be a constructive force in the Middle East and a counter force to our alliance with Israel. Stupidity.

Obama and Biden allowed Iran access to billions which went to expanding their terrorist network throughout Middle East and when Iranian people rebelled in 2009, Obama took the regime side. And when Trump had Iran on the economic rope in 2020, Biden open the spigot.

The October 7th attack was a direct result of Obama/Biden policies.

The little secret is that Trump had to clean up the Obama mistakes of his administration and now Trump is cleaning up Biden mess. A major European war in Central Europe, the Middle East mess and China on the march in the Western Pacific that is what Trump inherited.

Israeli took Iran situation in their own hands but there is enough evidence that United States knew what was up and didn’t object. Trump did his peace talk but makes you wonder if this was designed a fake since Trump knew that Iran would not give up their nuclear weapons.

We are the verge of expanded war in Europe and Middle East, but the key issue is Trump foreign policies are able to pull us back from the brink but don’t forget one thing, this was Obama and Biden doing!

January 6^th, 2021, which was the only major riot started by the left over the previous 12 months.  The Left, including members of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, committed almost all political violence in the U.S. in 2020.  Billions of dollars of property were destroyed and as many as 30 people died, including former St. Louis police chief David Dorn, murdered by thugs who filmed his death.   Violence has become part of the Left strategy in promoting their cause and destabilizing America.

Damages between May 26 and June 8,2020 resulted in as much as two billion dollars paid in insurance claims.  In Minneapolis alone, 1500 buildings were destroyed.  Minneapolis continues to be the costliest civil disorder in 2020-21 and much of the damage took place in minority communities on whose behalf they rioted for.  Violent riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin left 50 million dollars in damages and nearly 60 buildings destroyed.  The biggest damage occurred in the city’s most diverse areas that included where most minorities lived.  Like Chicago and Minneapolis, minority areas were ere the hardest hits in the Kenosha riots.

Many Black Lives Matter and Antifa activists did not really care about the damage they cause since buildings and goods aw just property—and not their property.    Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting, told NPR that it was morally justified for Black people to rob stores because “The very basis of property is derived through violence and through Black oppression…Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness, and the police.” What these Democrat-sanctioned riots did was to destroy businesses that drive the economies of these urban centers, blocking  chances for the poor to climb the economic ladder.

Much of the rioters engaged in looting claimed Black Lives Matter as their rationale for destroying the inner-city communities they claim they are supporting. In the aftermath of the nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd as Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert, about protesters, “They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone beware because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that… They’re not going to let up and they should not.”

In 2022, there were at least 38 acts of vandalism in art museums dealing with climate change according to one study and another noted  dataset saw 89 blockade, vandalism, and harassment events happening 13 countries. 

After Roe v Wade overturn, within short period of time witnessed over 100 acts of vandalism and arson on Catholic churches and pregnancy crisis centers and these attacks continued into 2024 and as one article in the Tampa Times noted,  “However, despite the rash of attacks against churches and pregnancy centers two years after the fall of Roe, the  Biden Justice department has done little to also prosecute the individuals responsible.”

The recent murder of  two Israeli jews highlighted the violence, and protest by pro-Palestinian groups and after a serious of college “protest”, acts of intimidation directed at Jewish students,  blockade of traffic and now murder are showing a rise of antisemitism throughout the world and in United States, most of this coming from the left and the Democratic Party John Hinderaker of Powerline  observed,  “Tom Wolfe’s much-quoted adage is that “the dark night of fascism is always descending on America but always lands in Europe.” In a similar vein, one can say that the authorities and the press are always looking for “domestic terrorism” on the right, but in fact, it consistently comes from the left…The latest left-wing terrorist is Elias Rodriguez. Rodriguez was obsessed with Israel and chanted “Free, free Palestine” after murdering Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, just as if he were participating in a demonstration at Columbia. He left behind a self-justification on Twitter in which he called Israel a “genocidal apartheid state,” a sentiment that could have come from a number of members of Congress. Israel is so evil, according to Rodriguez, that “to many Americans,” murdering Israelis is “in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.” These protests have happened in 45 states and on nearly 140 college campus, and many of these “protests” included vandalism plus blocking traffic throughout the country 

From beginning of the first Trump administration, we have seen thousands of riots, vandalism, blockade of traffic,  and deaths resulting by the left. You would be hard pressed to find on your hands the number of the riots caused by the right, the first being in Charlotteville in 2017 and January 6^th in 2021. Many leftist activist and Democratic politicians have tolerated these acts of violence and it should be noted that the organizer of the Charlotteville riot voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Violence is now a recognized and tolerated tactics of the Left.